Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[AgnosticBoy]

You keep wanting me to describe this "thing" when I've told you many times that I don't know what it is exactly.

I find it a bit disingenuous for you to say you don't know what this 'thing' is exactly. In reality, you know exactly nothing about this 'thing' as you admit.

If there is something involved that is independent of our brains, I want to know everything about this 'thing' that is possible to know. This thread has not been informative unfortunately.

It's understandable that you want answers, but no one should let that drive them to jump to conclusions. That has been part of the problem that leads to a god-of-the-gaps type explanation, except now we also have materialism being used to fill the "gap". As an agnostic, I'm willing to embrace the mystery and wait for the evidence to come in, whereas others might resort to their preconceived ideas.

If this 'thing' is real and if it interacts with our reality, we would be able to detect these interactions. Can we?

Sure, it's possible but maybe indirectly if you're referring to a third-person point-of-view. It's almost counterintuitive to think that you can interact with something nonphysical, but the fact is that we can experience it. We experience nonphysical existence everyday when we dream.

Could there be something independent of our brains supplying consciousness? Sure, but currently it's just some idea and isn't even a necessary explanation. I don't see what predictions we could test against it nor do I see how we can even falsify this idea. Therefore, it is found wanting currently as an explanation.

This thread has not been informative unfortunately.

You say that I've presented nothing informative. I think you're falling back into thinking that not having a 'theory' means I have nothing, as if it sheds no light on consciousness. First, what I've presented shows people the evidence. Did you even know about Pam Reynold's NDE and how good the evidence was for it? If you didn't, well now you and all of the audience knows! Second, theories are built on data, observations, etc. So while I don't have any theory, but I at least have an idea of what a theory of consciousness would involve or what is has to account for.

When we take our brains out of the equation and become aware of something we can smell for example, what is this independent thing that has detected the scent we are now aware of? My understanding is that the scents bind to specialized receptors in the olfactory epithelium, triggering signals that are transmitted to the brain for processing and interpretation. You seem to find this unsatisfactory and need there to be more, specifically something independent of what we already know is taking place. Why is our olfactory system not enough to explain becoming aware of this scent?

I don't dispute that that's the way hearing works, but the real dispute is if that is the only way to experience sound. In the case of Pam Reynolds, she had sound and sight while her bodily senses were impaired - eyes taped shut and ears were plugged with ear buds generating loud sounds. So your explanation doesn't apply to NDEs. Obviously, we need to find out more about how sound works in the conscious state that she was in instead of just assuming that there's only one way to experience sound and sight.

[AgnosticBoy]

Materialists settle for along the lines of "WE are nothing more than the brain" and that creates its own bias when examining the evidence...and brings us no closer to solving the mystery.

In my view, the reason why consciousness is so challenging for scientists to explain is because of their narrow focus on the brain, and really just their narrow focus overall. We should be open to exploring alternative theories, and maybe even alternative approaches, just as long as it can be done in a systematic and controlled way. Perhaps some of these alternative theories could yield some clues but we greatly reduce our chances of finding out if scientists just dismiss them a priori or because they're not mainstream.

If Clownboat really wants to see more evidence out of NDEs, then I'd encourage him to start advocating for more hospital systems to allow for NDE documentation and ways to test them. Right now, we're left with lone researchers that have to pushback against the mainstream.

[William]

Materialists settle for along the lines of "WE are nothing more than the brain" and that creates its own bias when examining the evidence...and brings us no closer to solving the mystery.

In my view, the reason why consciousness is so challenging for scientists to explain is because of their narrow focus on the brain, and really just their narrow focus overall.

Is that all scientists, or the scientists focused specifically on physics/physical science?
Also - is the problem limited to scientists or does this extend to those who are focused on the narrow spectrum of observable reality?

We should be open to exploring alternative theories, and maybe even alternative approaches, just as long as it can be done in a systematic and controlled way.

To some - even many - "a systematic and controlled way" effectively means sticking with the parameters of the observable reality and ignoring theories which don't.

Perhaps some of these alternative theories could yield some clues but we greatly reduce our chances of finding out if scientists just dismiss them a priori or because they're not mainstream.

More to the point, because they are seemingly irrelevant. "Mainstream" = "the systematic and controlled way"

Consciousness is hard to pin down and perhaps that is one of its attributes. Let those who believe they are meat, act accordingly. Death will either provide them with what they expect, or there will be more experience to be had...

[Clownboat]

Yes - but what is consciousness in essence, is the mystery.

William, you want it to be a mystery, but that doesn't make it so.
Consciousness is our ability to be aware and this takes place in our brains. I acknowledge that this explanation might not be mysterious enough for your liking, but that doesn't justify inventing some undefined 'thing'?

No more strange than the claims the brain is the supplier of consciousness...

Your complaint is with mainstream neuroscience, not with me, I'm just a messenger. I acknowledge that you feel claims from mainstream neuroscience are strange. You do you.

One predominant approach to understanding how humans become conscious is called the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). This concept, made popular by former Caltech professor Christof Koch, describes how different parts of the brain work together to give rise to consciousness.
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... sciousness

Of course you are.

Then you needed not ask the question.

But the question I asked was essentially "what do you think you are?" in your conscious state.

I'm consciously aware that I'm Homo sapiens sapiens. Seems to be another question that didn't need to be answered, but perhaps I'm missing something.

What is the "you" and do "you" think you are supplied with consciousness or do you think you ARE consciousness?

This is a poor question, like asking 'who' causes it to rain. You ask this because you want consciousness to be a mystery, but like rain, it is possible that our consciousness a simple explanation that isn't mysterious and really does just emerge from different parts of the brain working together. There need not be a 'who' for why it rains anymore than there must be a 'thing' supplying us with consciousness. Do you acknowledge this possibility?

If you think you ARE consciousness, then explain how consciousness is supplied with itself from a third party (brain).

Let's get specific for you.
When you see a dog cross your path, light enters your eye and is converted into electrical signals by the retina. These signals travel through the optic nerve to the brain, specifically the visual cortex, where they are processed and interpreted to form an image of this dog you are now consciously aware of. I think you error to call the brain a third party, but my words stand either way.

You are conscious of being consciousness?

Bam! Next thing you know, like the research I provided earlier suggests:
Our brains trick us into thinking consciousness can reside outside the body, new Northeastern research says.
When we become aware, it would seem natural to question what is becoming aware (like you did above asking what is the "you"), next thing we know, we have tricked ourselves into thinking there must be something external when it's possible that isn't valid. I currently argue that something external doesn't seem required to explain how and why we are aware.

So, if I understand your thinking correctly - you (consciousness/a conscious entity) think that your brain "allows" you to "become aware" even that you are already aware by definition of being conscious. That is interesting...

I acknowledge that you find it interesting that our brains are involved with our becoming aware of our surroundings. Why this is found interesting is lost on me as it seems obvious, but perhaps I'm missing something?

If our brains are not supplying this sense of self to ourselves, what is?

What our brains (and by extension - our bodies) are supplying us with is a human experience.

Not what I asked.

Think of it in terms of how we (in said human experience) can wear a headset and experience a simulated reality - in that case, we know we are experiencing a reality simulation as a human, using human built tech. But in putting on the human form, we completely immerse in the reality experience (being "human" on a "planet" in a "universe") and "forget" what we were, prior to entering said reality experience - but - we are not subject to this amnesia throughout the experience, unless we choose to be, and we choose to be IF we believe we are actually the brain/body...

This also fails to answer the question, what is supplying this sense of self to ourselves if not our brains? So far I have learned that it is a 'thing'.

I am not so sure that is the case as having read your thoughts in this thread, you appear to be struggling to be open about it, even to a point where you can consider it possible.

Then this would be a reading comprehension failure on your part. I have stated time and time again that I'm open to the idea of something external. My only complaint is with the terrible explanatory power of 'thing'.

As to my "teaching" you in detail, that is not my responsibility.

To correct you, teaching me is not in your ability. I don't think you can actually teach me anything about consciousness.

<snipped some odd claims about self learning that are very off topic>

So yes, you "understand" you are "conscious" but what does that signify to "you"?

That I understand that I'm conscious. You seem to be asking 'what thing' is providing me with consciousness, and as I said before, that might be like asking 'who' causes it to rain. Consider the possibility that there might not be a 'who' or a 'thing'. Again, I'm open to any information you can provide me about this 'thing'.

I simply take the claim at face value. If one doesn't want another to misunderstand their claim, one should make sure to word it so that the implication is absent altogether. In ordinary use of language - something that "tricks" is intentional(ie "wilful"). It requires conscious awareness to "trick". So the fault is not mine, as I am merely responding to the way the statement is worded. Perhaps you can explain what the statement actually "means"?

Wrong and demonstrably so.
A person might have a bias that every word in a holy book is true for example. They may trick themselves into believing that their was a global flood because of this.
A person might have a bias that we live in a simulation. They may trick themselves into believing all sorts of things.

How I define my SELF is my journey, and if I think others are attempting to define me in a specific manner which limits the potential of consciousness (what I am) then I am free to examine that and decide for my SELF.

Ok. This is uninteresting.

I gave you links re NDE evidence. Start there and educate yourself...

I'm now going to take a page out of your book.
Here is a link about why the sky is blue. Start there and educate yourself... (This is a silly way to debate, isn't it?)
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/

[Clownboat]

I find it a bit disingenuous for you to say you don't know what this 'thing' is exactly. In reality, you know exactly nothing about this 'thing' as you admit.

If there is something involved that is independent of our brains, I want to know everything about this 'thing' that is possible to know. This thread has not been informative unfortunately.

It's understandable that you want answers, but no one should let that drive them to jump to conclusions. That has been part of the problem that leads to a god-of-the-gaps type explanation, except now we also have materialism being used to fill the "gap". As an agnostic, I'm willing to embrace the mystery and wait for the evidence to come in, whereas others might resort to their preconceived ideas.

I acknowledge that how we become aware of our surrounding is a mystery to you. Unfortunately, this provides no information about some external, mysterious 'thing' that you seemingly have jumped to the conclusion exists independent of our brains.
(See the bold above)

If this 'thing' is real and if it interacts with our reality, we would be able to detect these interactions. Can we?

Sure, it's possible but maybe indirectly if you're referring to a third-person point-of-view. It's almost counterintuitive to think that you can interact with something nonphysical, but the fact is that we can experience it. We experience nonphysical existence everyday when we dream.

Please note that I asked if this 'thing' interacts with our reality. You said "sure", but then failed to explain how. Almost as if this 'thing' doesn't interact with our reality in any way that can be articulated outside of calling it mysterious. I currently find 'thing' to be an invalid explanation because a 'thing' doesn't even seem to be required if you ask me and the sources I have provided. I can see how a religious person or a living in a simulation person, etc... would need this to be real though. I personally think it would be really cool if there was something independent of our brains. I would literally like for this to be real, but I need more before I can take my want seriously.

You say that I've presented nothing informative. I think you're falling back into thinking that not having a 'theory' means I have nothing, as if it sheds no light on consciousness. First, what I've presented shows people the evidence. Did you even know about Pam Reynold's NDE and how good the evidence was for it? If you didn't, well now you and all of the audience knows! Second, theories are built on data, observations, etc. So while I don't have any theory, but I at least have an idea of what a theory of consciousness would involve or what is has to account for.

Like I have argued from the start, affecting our brains whether via drugs or damage affects our consciousness. An NDE would qualify as affecting the brain, nearly to the point of death I note.
As far as Pam Reynold's case goes, why doesn't this happen on a daily basis? You have to admit that we have countless people being rendered unconscious each and ever day, therefore if there is something independent of our brains supplying consciousness, I would sure think it would show itself quite frequently, wouldn't you?

I don't dispute that that's the way hearing works, but the real dispute is if that is the only way to experience sound. In the case of Pam Reynolds, she had sound and sight while her bodily senses were impaired - eyes taped shut and ears were plugged with ear buds generating loud sounds. So your explanation doesn't apply to NDEs. Obviously, we need to find out more about how sound works in the conscious state that she was in instead of just assuming that there's only one way to experience sound and sight.

NDE's greatly affects our brains. I note that affecting our brains does affect our consciousness.
If you feel that there are other ways to experience sounds for example, please provide any information you can about the 'thing' that is doing it for me to examine.

[Clownboat]

Materialists settle for along the lines of "WE are nothing more than the brain" and that creates its own bias when examining the evidence...and brings us no closer to solving the mystery.

In my view, the reason why consciousness is so challenging for scientists to explain is because of their narrow focus on the brain, and really just their narrow focus overall. We should be open to exploring alternative theories, and maybe even alternative approaches, just as long as it can be done in a systematic and controlled way. Perhaps some of these alternative theories could yield some clues but we greatly reduce our chances of finding out if scientists just dismiss them a priori or because they're not mainstream.

If Clownboat really wants to see more evidence out of NDEs, then I'd encourage him to start advocating for more hospital systems to allow for NDE documentation and ways to test them. Right now, we're left with lone researchers that have to pushback against the mainstream.

What I want is for anyone to provide every single piece of information that we have about what this 'thing' is and how it interacts with our physical brains to allow us to be aware of our surroundings.
If you cannot do better than, it's mysterious, you have brought nothing to the table and we might as well chat about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #84]

you want it to be a mystery, but that doesn't make it so.

Consciousness is a mystery.

Consciousness is our ability to be aware

No. WE are consciousness. When you say consciousness is OUR ability - you are separating YOU/US from CONSCIOUSNESS when there is nothing to show that these are different "things".

Your complaint is with mainstream neuroscience, not with me, I'm just a messenger.

Are you suggesting that you are simply bringing a "message"? Are you not arguing that the message from the interpretations of neuroscience are not what you agree with/believe in yourself?

I'm consciously aware that I'm Homo sapiens

I am aware that I am consciousness having a human experience.

What is the "you" and do "you" think you are supplied with consciousness or do you think you ARE consciousness?

This is a poor question,

It is not a poor question.

like asking 'who' causes it to rain.

Yet you are messaging that your brain creates "your" consciousness, are you not? It is not "who" but "what" - a "brain" creates "your" conscious self. Do you think YOU would be a "you" without consciousness? It sounds to me that is what you are arguing.
If you were not conscious, how would you even experience being a human being or identify with being SELF?

Our brains trick us into thinking consciousness can reside outside the body, new Northeastern research says.

And what do you say? Do you believe this to be true? I have already explained why this cannot be the case. I have also asked for an explanation as to why something which is unconscious can trick something that is conscious.
(“the brain tricks us” anthropomorphize unconscious processes)

When we become aware, it would seem natural to question what is becoming aware (like you did above asking what is the "you"), next thing we know, we have tricked ourselves into thinking there must be something external when it's possible that isn't valid.

Read what you wrote there.

IF we didn't "become aware" WE wouldn't understand our self AS a SELF. Get it?
Then you write "next thing we know, we have tricked ourselves" into thinking "there must be something external" (not anything I have explicitly argued) but look at your words there "we have tricked ourselves" - first the claim is the BRAIN tricks "us" and now...WE trick ourselves.

Our brains trick us into thinking consciousness can reside outside the body, new Northeastern research says.

Please explain how a mindless thing like a brain can trick us. I have already argued who it is unlikely, and you skipped answering that.

If our brains are not supplying this sense of self to ourselves, what is?

Nothing else BUT consciousness is necessary. Consciousness is by definition the sense of self.

Here is a link about why the sky is blue.

I have already stated that the human senses operated on an extremely small spectrum of what actually exists. It is reasonable to understand that consciousness having a human experience will be limited to the operational senses of their brain-body. The evidence in the reports of NDEs reveal that consciousness experiences a far greater spectrum of reality when disengaged from the dominant reality the brain-body allows for. There is no necessity to claim the brain "tricks" the consciousnesses experiencing these alternate realities - for the reasons I have already given and which you have skipped over.

[AgnosticBoy]

I acknowledge that how we become aware of our surrounding is a mystery to you.
(See the bold above)

Yes, in the context of Pam Reynold's NDE. She was aware of her external environment while her brain and senses were impaired.